Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]
AS 24 National Union of Teachers (Supplementary)

Clause 90

Power to amend apprenticeship scheme

Amendment made: 412, in clause 90, page 54, line 28, leave out (1)(b) and insert (1A)(b).(Jim Knight.)

This amendment is consequent on amendments 410 and 411.

Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

Education and training for persons aged 19 or over and others subject to adult detention

Siôn Simon: I beg to move amendment 346, in clause 92, page 55, line 29, at end insert
(ga) have regard to the desirability of the core entitlement and the additional entitlement being satisfied for persons subject to adult detention but aged under 19 who have elected for them;.

This amendment requires the Chief Executive of Skills Funding when securing the provision of education and training under clause 92 for persons subject to adult detention to have regard to the desirability of the core and additional entitlements being satisfied for those persons who have elected for them.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 347.

Siôn Simon: Good morning, Mrs. Humble. Amendment 346 requires that the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency, in securing suitable education and training provision for persons subject to adult detention, but aged under 19-years-old, has regard to the desirability of the core curriculum and additional entitlements being satisfied for those who have elected for them.
The change also results in consequential amendment 347, which provides for the definition of core entitlement and additional entitlement under clause 92 to be read alongside proposed new sections 17B to 17D of the Education Act 1996 to be inserted under clause 44. The size and infrastructure of many custodial establishments make it unfeasible for them to offer the full diploma entitlement in custody. We are not expecting any one school or college to deliver the full entitlement in the community and it is not practical to expect custodial establishments to be able to deliver that either. Most young adult offendersthose aged over 18 but under 19 years oldare in adult custody for a short time so it will usually not be practical to study a full diploma course, for example.
The core and additional entitlements are designed to be flexible, and we want to ensure that offenders in custody can receive learning as closely aligned as practicable with that available in the mainstream sector. For that reason, the amendment would require the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to have regard to the desirability of the core and additional entitlements being satisfied.

John Hayes: The Minister will be aware that the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council resigned yesterday. Should the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency resign, to whom would that responsibility pass?

Siôn Simon: Let me be clear about the question. Should the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency resign, to whom would the responsibilities of the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency pass?

John Hayes: In what regard is the Minister thinking about?

Siôn Simon: I am assuming that such a position would be the same as in any other regard, in that the responsibilities would lie in the first instance with the permanent secretary as the accounting officer, who would then, I assume, immediately appoint an acting replacement, as happened yesterday with the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council.
I hope that members of the Committee agree that the amendments are necessary to align the education and training in adult detention as far as practicable with that available in juvenile custody and the mainstream sector.

John Hayes: What a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mrs. Humble, after our deliberations last week in your absence. We look forward to making the same steady, considered progress, without hyperbole or unnecessary delay. Under the amendments, the Skills Funding Agency must ensure the provision of core and additional entitlements for those under 19 years old in adult detention. It is clear that clause 92 moves the provision of education of those in detention from the Learning and Skills Council to the Skills Funding Agency, hence my earlier intervention. I wanted to establish whether the same protocols would apply with the SFA that we could reasonably expect of the LSC in respect of accountability and responsibility. Given the crisis that led to the resignation of the chief executive of the LSC yesterday, that question is pertinent.
I wish to probe the position of OLASS, the offender learning and skills service, which would previously have looked after the younger people in adult detention, and to determine whether the amendment ensures that young offenders can progress beyond level 2 in the core and additional entitlements.
It is worth reminding the Committee that OLASS was established only in 2005 and is therefore at a relatively early stage of its development. The Prisoners Education Trust has indicated that it is moving in the right direction and that, in the new contracting round for learning and skills providers that is currently under way, OLASS intends to address many of the weaknesses identified in its first three years of work. When I speak of weaknesses, I am alluding to the National Audit Office report, Meeting Needs? The Offender Learning and Skills Service and the Public Accounts Committee report of Session 47 with the same title. Can the Minister indicate whether OLASS will become part of the SFA and whether the SFA has the ability to carry on the work that OLASS has been doing?
Secondly, though a significant proportion of prisoners lack even basic qualifications, and it is understandable that priority is given to enabling that group to reach level 1 and, if possible, level 2, can the Minister indicate whether there is to be any level 3 provision for those in adult detention who may already have level 2 qualifications, or indeed who may have acquired those during the education they received while detained?
Thirdly, could the Minister indicate what the provision in relation to core and additional provision will consist of, and whether there will be funding for those who may wish to engage in distance learning on the core and additional entitlement?
Finally, in relation to persons subject to adult detention, clause 92 states that the chief executive of skills funding must
act with a view to encouraging diversity of education and training available to individuals...increasing opportunities for individuals to exercise choice
and
have regard to the desirability of enabling
offenders
to continue programmes of education or training which they have begun.
OLASS is working hardparticularly after the comments made in the two independent studies that I mentioned from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committeeto provide and develop its services. Nevertheless, there are gaps. Does the Minister believe that funding core and additional provisions will fill the gaps?
I have a final question. I am sure that the Minister will want to say in his comprehensive concluding remarks something about those with learning difficulties, particularly language difficulties. We talked about that earlier in relation to other aspects of the Bill. It is highly relevant to the clause and the Government amendments.

Siôn Simon: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he hoped we would continue to make steady progress today. There is an interpretation on this side of the Committee that we have not quite been making the speedy progress required if we are to have an even consideration of matters in the considerable time that has been allocated to us. I hope that, while keeping the progress steady and the consideration thorough, the hon. Gentleman will join me in perhaps upping the pace and cracking on a bit more smartly.

Nick Gibb: I find those comments fairly concerning. Does the Minister not want a question put to him during deliberations on a Government amendment? Mrs. Humble, there are more than 200 Government amendmentspushing on 300to a 256-clause Bill. For the Minister to complain when Opposition Members question amendments that have been tabled since Second Reading is unwarranted.

Siôn Simon: I am not complaining about being questioned. I am simply reminding the hon. Gentleman who was congratulating us on making steady progress that we have actually been going more slowly. We have spent 53 minutes out of 20 hours of debate on Government amendments. They are technical amendments. We have already spent nine minutes of our two and a half hours this morning debating Government amendments. I shall attempt to deal with all the questions that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has mentioned as quickly and efficiently as I can.
The core and additional entitlements are designed to offer flexible learning and accreditation. We are looking at how adult offenders might be able to study for some components that can then contribute to a full diploma while they are in custody.
In answer to the hon. Gentlemans question, the Offender Learning and Skills Service will continue and it will sit inside the Skills Funding Agency. He mentioned some of the issues that were raised in the reports from the PAC and the NAO. We are addressing those and have published our replies in detail. To answer his question about level 3 provision, there will be such provision in the same kind of circumstances that will apply according to the same criteria applied outside. There may be e-learning for diplomas, and we are exploring its possible applicability to custodial establishments. As for learning difficulties, the LSC is developing a comprehensive tool to asses learning difficulties for offenders and we hope that it will be in place by 1 August. It will allow OLASS to improve the service and address even better the needs of those learners.

John Hayes: The only point that the hon. Gentleman did not cover in that pithy and appropriately concise summary was the issue about those whom the Government wish to engage in distance learning on core and additional entitlement. I should like to add to that the continuation of peoples learning once released. One of the big complaints that PAC and others made related to the issue of continuity, in the sense that they began things that they had finished rather than restarting training and education. That is critical because of the impact that the acquisition of education and skills has in preventing recidivism.

Siôn Simon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemans kind words about my conciseness and I am glad that we seem to have reached more of a consensus about that matter. I had intended to answer more clearly the question about e-learning. The current plan has provision for e-learning and distance learning and there are pilots in train now to examine how more can be done with that within the confines of the security and restriction requirements of being in detention. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right that we need to do more to join up the prison learning experience with the after-prison learning experience.

Amendment 346 agreed to.

Amendment made: 347, in clause 92, page 56, line 5, at end insert
( ) Sections 17B to 17D of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (core and additional entitlements: interpretation) apply for the purpose of subsection (4)(ga) as they apply for the purpose of section 17A of that Act (duties of local education authorities in relation to the core and additional entitlements)..(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 346 and provides for core entitlement and additional entitlement in clause 92(4)(ga)to be read in accordance with sections 17B-17D of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by clause 44).

Clause 92, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,
That clause 92 be transferred to end of line 33 on page 50. (Mr. Simon.)

Clause 93

Learning aims for persons aged 19 or over: provisions of facilities

Stephen Williams: I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 93, page 56, line 10, leave out from is to end of line 12 and insert either
(a) education or vocational training provided by means of a course of study for a qualification to which paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 applies, or
(b) an apprenticeship..
Good morning, Mrs., Humble, and welcome back to the Chair. Clause 93 deals with the duty placed on the chief executive of Skills Funding to provide proper facilities for certain adults who lack basic skills so that that they can acquire those skills. This is a straightforward amendment, so I shall rise to the Ministers challenge by not speaking to it for too long. As drafted, the clause states that the duty to be placed on the chief executive of Skills Funding is to provide educational and vocational training to adults who lack certain basic skills. However, it does not explicitly include apprenticeships as one of those proper vocational training courses. In our debates on earlier clauses, we were keen to seek assurances from the Ministers that the apprenticeship option would be included in guidance and advice; for instance, apprenticeships should be explicitly mentioned to young people starting off on their training journey, and they should be included in the suite of training courses available to people whether they are young or, as in this part of the Bill, over 19.
The purpose of the amendment is to expand the definition of education and vocational training explicitly to include an apprenticeshippresumably a level 2 apprenticeshipto meet the basic skills requirements envisaged by the clause. We are having this discussion in a terrible recession and economic downturn. Members on both sides of the Committee have all made speeches in various debates saying that this is the time to encourage adults to skill and reskill throughout their working lives. The clause is directed at adults who lack basic skills. One purpose of the Bill is to enable people to acquire an apprenticeship at level 2, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that the clause opens up the opportunity for an adult, aged over 19, to commence a level 2 apprenticeship.

John Hayes: As the hon. Member for Bristol, West said, clause 93 enables adults who do not have any qualifications or who have learning difficulties to qualify for a specified qualification in literacy and numeracy, or a level 2 vocational qualification. The amendment proposes that the entitlement should extend to apprenticeships, and that is welcome. It is absolutely essential that apprenticeships are built in to assumptions about what people might learn in those circumstances. Apprenticeships must be as available and as inclusive as possible and that is what the amendment strives to achieve. However, there are some problems with the amendment and the hon. Gentleman might want to deal with them.
First, subsection (3)(b) specifically relates to people with no certificate of literacy or numeracy and no level 2 vocational qualification. While we support the inclusivity of apprenticeships, it is clear that there are apprenticeships in certain sectors that require basic standards of numeracy and literacy and that is not necessarily guaranteed by the amendment. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about how that might affect apprenticeships in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics sector?
Secondly, the amendment centralises authority to some degree and, despite its laudable objectives, unless we are very careful, it will increase bureaucracy and regulation, which Conservative Members wish to cast aside. That is an issue that sector skills councils must consider and on which they must develop policies in consultation with employers and learning providers. Sector skills councils should be required to make apprenticeships as inclusive as possible, but we would all accept that not all apprenticeships suit all kinds of people and are, by their nature, tailored by circumstances, aptitudes and the existing skills of learners.
Both Skill and ALLFIEthe alliance for inclusive educationexpressed similar concerns about access to apprenticeships for disabled learners, which is why I raised the issue in our earlier debate this morning. Those groups state that the requirement for level 2 qualifications
may disadvantage some disabled learners who may have very relevant experience but may struggle to gain the require qualifications..
They also recommend that eligibility should not be
limited to qualifications, but that a portfolio of evidence is considered..
That is a route that should be looked at by Government, in conjunction with sector skills councils, and I would welcome the Ministers comments when he replies to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, West.

Siôn Simon: Can the hon. Gentleman go over the previous point again? I did not quite understand what he was asking.

John Hayes: Organisations that represent disabled people argue that many of those for whom they speak do not fit the profile of the typical learner. They may not have achieved the same levels or qualifications in training or education as others, but they may have lots of useful experience. They therefore suggest that a portfolio of evidence of their experience and competence could be used as a springboarda triggerfor further training and education. Will the Minister say something about that? I have suggested that SSCs might like to consider that idea to increase inclusivity. We must think more laterally if we want to increase the inclusivity of apprenticeships. These are probing remarks, but it is worth raising these issues at this stage because they are interesting and highly relevant. Although we support the sentiment behind the amendment, the measure itself carries the risk that it would compromise flexibility. I know that that is not the intention, but I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, West understands the spirit in which I make these remarks.

Siôn Simon: I agree with the sentiments behind the remarks of the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Bristol, West. I understand where the hon. Member for Bristol, West is coming from with his amendment. We all want adults to have the opportunity to start and complete apprenticeships. An apprenticeship is an excellent route for adults who want to improve their skills and employability, which is why we have extended financial support to employers for apprentices over the age of 25 and why the number of apprenticeship starts in that group went up from just 300 in the previous year to 27,000 last year.
Clause 93 puts a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding to ensure that adults who have very few skills, who need help with numeracy and literacy or who do not have a full level 2 can access the relevant courses. Clause 94 will ensure that those learners and 19 to 25-year-olds taking their first level 3 will not have to pay full tuition fees. Ultimately, this is a straightforward choice about priorities. Our priority is improving the life chances of those with very few skills, which puts them at a great disadvantage.
Amendment 117 would extend that duty to all adults who want to do an apprenticeship. All the training costs of an adult apprenticeship would be met from the public purse. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West knows, employers are currently required to meet at least half the training costs of apprentices who are over 18 in recognition of the principle of shared responsibility between employers, learners and the Government. Employers are asked to contribute most when they stand to see the greatest returns. That is a long-standing policy endorsed by Lord Leitch. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that funding for apprenticeships is dealt with in clause 92 and that adults are dealt with separately with the 50 per cent. funding.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings suggested a portfolio of evidence for disabled learners who wish to do apprenticeships. Eligibility for apprenticeships is ultimately a matter for the framework provider. We are working with Skill and others to find alternative routes into apprenticeships. I do not think that these matters should be included in the Bill, but I am sympathetic to the concerns that he raises.

John Hayes: Those matters would, I presume, be included in guidance. If we are going to be clear in that guidance about the various routes into training and education, which are highly pertinent to the Bill, it should touch upon such things. While the Minister is speaking, he might like to say something about the discrepancy that has come to light between the number of apprenticeship completion certificates that are issued and the announced number of completions.

Siôn Simon: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman for certain whether we will refer specifically to the matter in guidance. Certainly, we will continue to look at it sympathetically.

John Hayes: I take that in good faith.

Siôn Simon: Good. I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemans good faith, and all I can do is give him assurance. The other matter was brought to our attention only yesterday and we are looking at it as a matter of urgency, on which basis I hope the hon. Member for Bristol, West will be minded to withdraw the amendment. I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, but, practically, I do not think it would do what he intends.

Stephen Williams: First, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings talked about not placing formal qualification barriers before adults with learning difficulties when it comes to entering apprenticeships or other schemes of vocational training. We have made those points several times, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, who made them in relation to clauses that we discussed earlier. Given that we still have much ground to cover, I will be brief, and not go over the same things again. It is common ground. I, too, have met ALLFIE to discuss its concerns, which we have raised in Committee on its behalf.
I welcome what the Minister has just said and what he said in relation to previous clauses. He understands why we tabled the amendment, which would make it clear that apprenticeships would be contemplated for adults who lack basic skills. We have spoken many times about the advice and support that would be given to young people and adults to ensure that they understand all the training opportunities that are available to them. The purpose of the amendment was not necessarily to force a discussion on the funding of adult apprenticeships. The Minister knows that the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party and, indeed, the Conservative party, disagree about that, and we will discuss it shortly.
Having heard what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,
That Clause 93 be transferred to end of line 33 on page 50. (Mr. Simon.)

Schedule 5

learning aims for persons aged 19 or over

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 201, in schedule 5, page 165, line 14, after education, insert
and the International General Certificate of Secondary Education.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 202, in schedule 5, page 165, line 18, after Education insert and the Cambridge Pre-U.

Nick Gibb: The schedule sets out a range of definitions of levels of qualification for clauses 93 and 94. In other words, it defines the learning aims for qualifying students over the age of 19, and the qualifications for which the chief executive of Skills Funding has to provide education. It defines level 2 as
demonstrated by the General Certificate of Secondary Education in five subjects, each at Grade C or above.
Level 3 is defined as
demonstrated by the General Certificate of Education at the advanced level in two subjects.
In amendment 201, we are seeking to include the international general certificate of secondary education in the definition of level 2, and in amendment 202, we are seeking to include the Cambridge pre-U in the definition of level 3.
The pre-U was recognised by Ofqual last year, and in April it was approved for funding. It is meant to mark a return to the traditional A-level, before it is divided into modules with assessment along the way. It takes a linear approachexams are taken only at the end of the two-year coursethe principle being to give teachers the freedom to teach without interruption from continual exams and retakes. Kevin Stannard of Cambridge International Examinations said:
The idea is to give back schools and teachers control over the curriculumit liberates the school and teachers, and gives them more power over the way that they teach.
The assistant head at Charterhouse school said:
The Pre-U courses are meatier than A-levels. We were concerned that the course content of A-levels has been nibbled away.
The IGCSE seems to have taken a little longer, despite 30,000 pupils in independent schools sitting the IGCSE last year and the qualification being hugely popular overseas. In February, Ofqual announced that it was accrediting 15 of the IGCSEs provided by Cambridge Assessment, including art and design, English language, English literature, French, geography, history, maths, physics, chemistry and biology, but they are not yet approved by the Government for funding. In effect, despite being accredited by Ofqual, the IGCSEs are not yet available in the state sector. The power to award funding rests with the Secretary of State, after taking advice from the Joint Advisory Committee for Qualifications ApprovalJACQA. That committee only meets termly. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee when JACQA will meet to discuss approval for the funding of the IGCSE.
Most commentators are confident that JACQA will approve the 15 IGCSEs. The real worry concerns the Secretary of State and the Minister for Schools and Learners. In a speech to the annual conference of the Association of School and College Leaders on Friday 13 March, the Secretary of State dismissed the IGCSE as a marketing strategy by the independent sector, and the Minister for Schools and Learners is grasping at straws when he criticises the content of the IGCSE, which is a cloak for his opposition to the return of rigour to our exam system.
For example, the Minister for Schools and Learners claimed that the IGCSE would create a two-tier exam system. That is not true. We already have a two-tier system, with the independent sector flocking to the exam, but the state sector having its freedom to adopt the exam blocked. The IGSCE is not like the O-level. The IGCSE, just like the GCSE, is an all-ability exam, but one that has not been damaged by the changes implemented over the past 10 years by the Government and the QCA.
The Minister also argued that the IGCSE in English literature does not require the study of a Shakespeare play. True, it does not require that, but it is an option, and one that the vast majority of schools that use the IGCSE take up. As Shakespeare is a requirement of the national curriculum, every school in the state sector that adopts the IGCSE in English literature would have to choose that requirement. It is disingenuous of the Minister to use that as a reason for not approving the IGCSE.
The Minister argued that the IGCSE in maths does not have a non-calculator paper. That is also true, but that is because the IGCSE in maths is a test of maths and not of arithmetic, which is as it should be. In fact, paper 4 of the mathematics IGCSE tests the application of real maths skills to non-familiar situations. If one can do part 4, it means one can do a non-calculator paper.
Finally, on the issue of the oral exam in the modern French language IGCSE, the Minister is, once again, wrong. There are oral exams in the upper and lower-tier language IGCSEs for languages new to a student. Anyone studying the French IGCSE who is not already fluent in the language, either as a first or second language, takes an oral exam as part of the qualification. The only IGCSEs in modern languages that do not have an oral exam are what are termed first and second language IGCSEsthere is no oral in such exams because a certain level of familiarity is assumed, just as there is no oral exam in GCSE English language, because exam-takers are usually native English speakers.
The Minister will be aware that it is a Conservative policy to allow all secondary schools in the state sector to adopt the IGCSE if they wish, and for that to be funded in the same way that GCSEs are. We want to close the attainment gap between the wealthiest and the poorest in our country, as that gap that is widening to unacceptable levels. It is not right that the independent sector, which educates just 15 per cent. of sixth-form students, delivers more students with three grade As at A-level than all the comprehensive schools put together. It is unacceptable that one in five pupils, and half of those who qualify for free school meals, do not achieve a single GCSE above a grade D. I await the Ministers response.

Annette Brooke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on his clear exposition. Liberal Democrat Members agree with the principles of what has been said, because it is important that if a truly independent Ofqual approves a qualification, the choice to take it up should be at schoolnot Secretary of Statelevel. As an aside, we had a ridiculous situation locally when an independent school featured low down the league tables published by the local paper and the head teacher had to explain that it was because the pupils had taken IGCSEs. That was a silly situation, and not a good position for that school to have been put in.
I have one or two doubts about whether this is the right part of the Bill for the provision, because it is fairly clear in the explanatory notes that the measure is a demonstration of, for example, five GCSEs. Presumably we could have a much longer list if we so wished. However, I endorse the hon. Gentlemans really important points. They were worth discussing, and we wait to see what happens in due course about the pre-U.

Siôn Simon: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on having made his case with his customary eloquence, erudition and assiduity. He has put his points on the record, where they will remain for ever. However, he knowsthe hon. Lady gently pointed out to himthat it is with some ingenuity that he has managed to insert his case at this point in the proceedings. We use the GCSE as a demonstration measure because it is readily and widely understandable. We are not even talking about GCSEs here, but about vocational qualifications. Paragraph 6 of schedule 5 provides a generic description of level 2 qualifications, giving five good GCSEs as the example, and amendment 201 inserts the IGCSE into that description. We use GCSEs as the benchmark simply because they provide a generally recognised measure of this level of attainment, which is easily and widely understood by potential learners. It would not add anything to the general publics understanding of the meaning of level 2 to insert the IGCSE, and the same argument holds for level 3 qualifications, A-levels and the Cambridge pre-U. I congratulate hon. Members on making their points so eloquently. However, these matters are not for me but for the Minister for Schools and Learners. They are not connected with these particular provisions, and on that basis I humbly beg that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I have listened carefully to the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I accept that this is not the right part of the proceedings in which to debate these issues. As the hon. Lady said, there is an important principle here about the independence of Ofqual, which we will come to later. This was an opportunity to raise the matter, and we ought to return to it on Report, when a new clause could be tabled, explicitly setting out this point of principle about the independence of Ofqual and whether the ultimate decision about choosing qualifications should rest with the Secretary of State or schools. I agree that it should be up to schools to decide on the use of a qualification, once Ofqual has approved or accredited it. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,
That clause 94 be transferred to end of line 33 on page 50. (Mr. Simon.)

Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,
That clause 95 be transferred to end of line 33 on page 50. (Mr. Simon.)

Clause 96

Encouragement of education and training for persons aged 19 or over and others subject to adult detention

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: I have just one question. The clause sets out the chief executives general duty to encourage participation by employers in education and training for people aged 19 or over and others in adult detention. With the office of the chief executive being located in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, what methods would the Minister expect to use to encourage participation and how does that clash with the position of the SFA, which carries out no actual delivery of service?

Siôn Simon: I meant to intervene before the hon. Gentleman sat down to ask him whether he could go through that more slowly and clearly.

John Hayes: I am trying to make progress so I am speeding up my delivery; I do not mean to confuse the Minister. First, the essence of my question is, how would the CEOs office be expected to encourage participation? By what means would the duty to encourage participation set out in clause 96 happen? Would there be guidance to support it? What would be the methodology? The Government must have looked at that. Secondly, how does that work with the SFAs status and role, given that it does not actually deliver the service?

Siôn Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification and apologise for briefly slowing him down. The answer is that the SFA would increase participation through all that it does. The structure of the SFA is designed to raise participation: through Train to Gain, which is currently successful in raising participation for people at work; through the Adult Advancement and Careers Service and skills accounts; and through the National Apprenticeship Service and the National Employer Service. All these gateways of the Skills Funding Agency are specifically and explicitly designed to drive demand and raise participation and quality in the skills system. It is through them that we expect the chief executive to discharge those duties.

John Hayes: I do not want to put words into the Ministers mouth, but I would hope that in that endeavour they will draw on some of the best practice currently abroad, which suggests a lateral approach because of many of these peoples previous experience of education. I have spoken to people involved in this field. There are any number of good projects that deal with people who are detained and they employ a range of methods that I hope would form part of the approach. It is fine to talk about the standard methodology, and the hon. Gentlemans answer was rather generic. What are the plans to take advantage of existing good practice that is particular to this field?

Siôn Simon: To be clear, the clause as drafted refers to all adults in the entire skills system

John Hayes: Including those in detention?

Siôn Simon: Yes. My generic answer was about all adults. If the hon. Gentlemans question is specifically on the new themes associated with offenders and offender learning, I can tell him that we recently published a hefty response to the PAC and NAO reports in precisely that area; I assume that he has read them. I do not think that this is the right time to go into that in great detail, nor do I think that it belongs on the face of the Bill. The underlying principle, to the extent to which the legislation refers to adults in detention, is that as far as possibleit will not always be perfectly possibleall the opportunities and facilities offered to the population at large should be offered to those in detention, and that includes extending to them those facilities that particularly address their needs, such as embedding skills for life training and learning into vocational training in construction skills, for example, in offender institutions.

John Hayes: Let us try a little role play. If I were the Minister and he were the shadow Minister, would he be comfortable with my saying, Given the PAC and NAO reports and our response to them, we will reinforce what we concluded in that response in the methodology we now employ to deal with those in detention, drawing on best practice and using the methods that are necessary to re-engage those people in education and training?

Siôn Simon: If I were the Minister

John Hayes: You are the Minister.

Siôn Simon: I am not comfortable pretending to be the shadow Minister. I do not disagree with any of that, but I am not sure that it takes us terribly far. It is not something to be dealt with today or in the Bill, and it is not really a matter for guidance. I broadly support what the hon. Gentleman says, and on that basis I would be grateful if we could perhaps move on.

Annette Brooke: I have a brief question and point of clarification for the Minister. I am concerned about young offenders aged just 19 who do not have special needs or learning difficulties but who nevertheless need a lot of support from their home authority. How will the clause tie in with the need for support from home authorities, which we have emphasised so strongly, for under-19s, given that there will be some young people on the cusp, probably quite immature for their age, who might need a double level of support? Will the Minister address that concern?

Siôn Simon: The main point to note about offenders aged 18 in adult custody, with regard to learning, is that if they were in the non-custodial skills or education systems they would still be treated as youths, but once they enter the custodial system at 18 they become adults. However, that is not to say that there should not be a role for overlapping follow-through from their home authority. I cannot tell the hon. Lady off the top of my head exactly what role there is, but I will certainly look into it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,
That clause 96 be transferred to end of line 33 on page 50. (Mr. Simon.)

Clause 97

Provision of financial resources

Stephen Williams: I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 97, page 58, line 30, leave out may and insert must.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said to me that it would not be a Bill Committee if we did not have what appears to be such a simple amendmentto substitute must for may. She is a veteran of these Committees, so she must be right. Of course, often simply changing one word for another has far reaching consequences. This amendment is not quite as innocent as it may seem at first reading.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Governments intentions for funding the ambitions behind the Billto encourage more people to enter an apprenticeshipand the ambitions of the individuals themselves. As has been referred to many times, on the back of the Leitch report the Government wish to construct a demand-led skills system that responds to the choices and needs of employers and individuals. This section of the Bill looks at the choices and needs of those aged over 19. The amendment is intended to provoke discussion and a response from the Minister about the Governments intentions for funding the choices of over-19s.
If we build on the earlier clauses and the Bill is a success, what happens next? A young person has received adequate advice and guidance and has successfully concluded a level 2 apprenticeship by 18 or 19. Then what? They will want to continue in employment and may want to study in higher education, but the funding regime for them and their employer is not as favourable as it was when they were 16 and 18. If the Bill and the Education and Skills Act 2008, which will raise the leaving age in 2013 to 17 and in 2015 to 18, are successful and many more people stay on in compulsory education and training until 18, not just because they have to but because they have achieved level 2 qualifications and want to do level 3, how will their choices at that juncture in their lives be met?
When an adult turns 19, the funding arrangements for them and for an employer place a barrier to progression to a level 3 apprenticeship or another vocational course. The contribution from the current Learning and Skills Council is usually only half of that available to a young person going for a level 2 apprenticeship. It is the position of my party and of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that to get more employers to offer apprenticeship places to adults, particularly advanced apprenticeships at level 3, further funding should be made available to incentivise employers to provide those places. We have identified broadly the same pot of money as the Train to Gain programme, which will have more than £1 billion of resources available to it by 2011.
The purpose of the amendment, simple as it may seem, is to get an idea from the Government of what will happen in the funding regime if the Bill and the building block of the Education and Skills Act 2008 are a success. How are the aspirations of, and the demands from individuals and employers, going to be met?

John Hayes: The amendment is important because it sheds light on a large issue at the heart of the Bill and on the difference between the Governments approach and the shared approach of the Opposition. As the hon. Gentleman elegantly put it, it is about the nature of the funding regime that will ensue as a result of these changes. It is not terribly clear what that regime will be. The Bill establishes a complex structure. It has been described as obscure, opaque and obtuse, which reflects some of the concerns expressed by various expert witnesses during the evidence sessions. The amendment is helpful because it highlights the rather worrying status of the Skills Funding Agencys chief executive officer, particularly in terms of the power that the agency will wield.
Indeed, many representatives of the further education sector have raised concerns about that. For example, Graham Moore of the 157 Group told us during an evidence session that if the FSA
is going to be an interventionist structureand it looks like oneI do not think it appropriate that it is run from within the Department. If it is going to operate, I would be happier to see it with a board, being accountable to the sector and the providers. So, the structure of the SFA is a missed opportunity, and I would like to see much more power and action at local level, between local authorities, providers, employers groups and so on, which is where the difference has to be made.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, that would be more in tune with the demand-led system recommended by Lord Leitch, to which the Government at least pay lip service. It is hard to see how the mantra of a demand-led system fits with the structure that the Bill will establish. It is important that the issue is raised now, because in its current form, the SFA lacks accountability to those it purports to serve and is extremely complex in the delivery of its functions.
Mr. Moore also said:
If you look at the complexity behind that single voice from the SFA, you will see that it is about its funding methodology and its rules and regulations on what you can and cannot do. You are not actually saying, We want to make a difference. These are the issues in your community, and the employers say this and the local authorities say that. You try to come to an agreement on how to address the Governments priorities in your local area, and I stress that that is where the difference needs to be made, and not on a national level.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 29-31, Q77 and 85.]
He went on to say that the system needs to be relatively simple, unbureaucratic, and so on. Furthermore, he was not certain that a body with 1,800 people was likely to deliver that clarity, simplicity and responsiveness.
I hope that the Minister uses this opportunity to say something about those concerns, because they are being expressed not only by Opposition parties, but by many of the people whom the Bill will directly affect, particularly in terms of the FSAs powers.

Siôn Simon: I will speak to the amendment before responding to some of the points made by hon. Members.
Amendment 3 would require the chief executive of Skills Funding to secure the provision of financial resources to the persons listed in clause 97(1), thereby removing the chief executives discretion to decide how the financial resources will be allocated. Clause 80 provides a power for the chief executive to secure apprenticeship places for 16 to 18-year-olds and for people aged over 19 but under 25 who are subject to a learning difficulty assessment. Furthermore, clause 83 imposes an obligation on the chief executive to exercise that power in order to secure sufficient apprenticeship places for everyone who wants one.
The amendment would have some unintended consequences; for example, it would require the chief executive to fund all those providing, or proposing to provide, goods or services in connection with the provision by others of education or training that falls within the chief executives remit, irrespective of the quality of such goods or services. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Bristol, West; he would rather, as he has said, raise the more general question of the funding of adult apprenticeships, and ask what deductions or inferences can be drawn from the Bill and the structures in it about the future funding of adult apprenticeships in particular and apprenticeships as a whole.
It would be wrong to believe that we are trying to send coded signals of any kind about any intention to change or reshape the future priorities or direction of the apprenticeships system. We fund them as we fund them nowvery successfully, and increasingly so year on year. Last year, at every level and age group, there was an increase and improvement from the year beforeindeed, to a record level. That is what we intend to continue doing.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West mentioned his partys and the Conservative partys plan to cut Train to Gain. We think that is a mistake, because it is an increasingly successful programme that has high satisfaction rates. In two years time, there will be 1 million people learning in the workplace, with work-relevant, high quality learning. A programme that seeks to make progress by cutting Train to Gain is a mistake for him and for the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
The questions of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings were more general still, about the funding formula and funding flow. The SFA will allocate funds according to the purchasing decisions of employers and individuals, expressed through Train to Gain and skills accounts. The rates that colleges receive will be based on a national funding formula, which will reflect delivery costs. That fundamentally is why it is not just rhetorically, but actually, demand led. We will also move to a system of accrediting providers who receive public funding, for overseeing which the SFA will be responsible. Accredited colleges and providers will be given an overall funding envelope based on track record, within which theythe providerswill have the freedom to respond to local employer and individual demand. They will not be constrained by detailed plans and frequent oversight by the SFA, as they have been by the LSC.

John Hayes: As I understood it, the intervention powers of the LSC will be transferred to the SFA.

Siôn Simon: We are not talking about the intervention powers, but about the delivery modelnot that that is actually what is before us at present, but as the hon. Gentleman has moved on to that conversation I am happy to have it as long as you, Mrs. Humble, permit me.
Review of the decisions and performance in that funding envelope will be taken up at regular points during the year; the single account managerthe single funding interlocutorwill be able to vary the funding envelope in-year if demand is lower than expected, or if a provider is underperforming. The process will not be too complex because the funding will flow in direct response to learner choices, which frees up providers from being constrained by rigid funding agreements, and enables them to provide the courses that students and employers want, rather than the courses that the LSC thinks they want. In return, money will be routed more quickly to colleges and providers, and be settled more quickly, because it will be based on real demand, not on complex planning decisions.

John Hayes: The reason I mentioned intervention powers is that the LSC and therefore, I assume, the SFA have the ability to adopt or create performance assessment systems, which could be directly linked to funding. Perhaps, therefore, the Minister might comment on the 157 Groups suggestion that the SFA should have been a non-departmental public body. Was that option considered, particularly given the fact that the Young Persons Learning Agency enjoys that status?

Joan Humble: Before I call the Minister, I must point out that we are wandering away from what is a very narrowly drawn amendment. I must advise members of the Committee that, if they continue in this fashion, I shall treat the debate as a stand part debate.

Siôn Simon: Thank you, Mrs. Humble.
I have said this before, but I can tell the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that we did consider whether the SFA should be a non-departmental public body or a typical executive agency, which it is not, or the more unusual body we finally decided on, or whether we needed to legislate at all, which, strictly speaking, we do not. Fundamentally, the reason that we decided on the body that we now haveas I say, we have covered all this beforewas that we wanted the SFA to be closer to Ministers, as part of a more streamlined process that gets from policy making to delivery in colleges and on high streets more quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively, while retaining some of the distance and operational independence that is also appropriate for the use of such large sums of public money.
The hon. Gentleman made an initial point. I would be grateful if he could remind me of it.

John Hayes: The LSC enjoys intervention powers around performance and the relationship between funding and performance. When I intervened on intervention powers, the Minister replied in a way that suggested that those two things are not associated with one another, but we know that, in practice, they are. There is close alignment in the relationship between funding regimes or methods and the powers to deal with performance in colleges, is there not?

Siôn Simon: Obviously, there is a relationship and when we say demand-led, that does not mean quality neutral. Yes, the intervention powers transfer to the new body, as do many of the previous powers of the LSC. The LSC is a body that evolved over nine years and it was, in many ways, very successful, with much good practice that we can continue. We are not chucking the baby out with the bathwater.

John Hayes: Including the management of the FE capital budget?

Siôn Simon: In framework for excellence, we have a single quality performance management tool for the whole of the 16-plus environment, and the SFAs chief executive has explicit powers on top of that. However, the operational intention is for the process to be as light-touch and streamlined as possible.
On that note, I still hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, West will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams: I have been listening carefully to what the Minister said in his responses to me and to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who speaks for the Conservatives.
The purpose of the amendment, and indeed of many previous amendments, was to see if a way could be found to make it easier for employers to offer apprenticeship places. In response to previous amendments, we received assurances from the Minister, for example that the Government would foster the creation of group training associations, through the chief executive of the SFA, to make it easier for small employers in particular to offer apprenticeship places.
I was looking for an assurance from the Minister that the funding regime might be amended to make it easier for employers to fund the off-the-job training costs of an apprenticeship place. It is necessary for me to clear up a comment that the Minister made about my partys policythe hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who speaks for the Conservatives, can defend himself. We are not proposing to cut the Train to Gain budget. We are simply saying that the future growth of that budget, which is quite substantial at around £500 million over the remainder of this comprehensive spending review period, should be specifically allocated to the funding of the off-the-job training costs of adult apprenticeships. Rather than a cut in expenditure, it is more imaginative use of existing budgeted Government resources, and it is important that we have such debates to make clear what we each propose.
None the less, it would not be appropriate for a simple amendment to alter fundamentally the Governments current budgetary provisions. That is a matter beyond the Ministers pay grade, let alone mine. We look forward to the Budget statement on 22 April to see whether something more imaginative will come from the Treasury to fund skills during the difficult economic circumstances that we are facing.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98

Financial resources: conditions

Amendment made: 277, in clause 98, page 60, line 7, leave out a learning difficulty assessment and insert
an assessment under section 139A or 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (assessments relating to learning difficulties).(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 278.

Clause 98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99

Performance assessments

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 99, page 60, line 20, at end add
(3) The Chief Executive must consult with the following when adopting or developing schemes as set out in subsection (1)
(a) The YPLA,
(b) a local education authority,
(c) Ofsted, and
(d) the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education..
The amendment would ensure that, when the CEO of the Skills Funding Agency is adopting or developing a performance assessment scheme, he does so in conjunction with the YPLA, an LEA, Ofsted and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. As we discussed earlier, the CEO of the Skills Funding Agency is in charge of a large centralised and relatively unaccountable body. I share the 157 Groups fears about that. It suggests strongly in what it describes as its supplementary evidence to the Committee that the status of the newly created Skills Funding Agency be formally clarified under the Bill and, as I have argued, that it should have the same status as the YPLA rather than being the close-to-Ministers body the Minister described, which simultaneously is supposed to be decentralised, responsive and light touch. I am not sure that those things can be reconciled, given the past experience of how Governments have managed their affairs.
The 157 Group was at pains to point out that too much power is being placed in the hands of Ministers and officials, which is out of line with the experience at HEFCE and with the proposed status of the YPLA. The amendment is designed to ensure that even if the SFA must remain within the Department, it consults closely with other key agencies in the development and adoption of performance methods and schemes. The performance schemes are vital when deciding where funding should go and, as such, are vital to the continuing existence and success of many education providers.
We should ensure that every effort is made to see that the performance schemes are developed with the closest co-operation of the providers, namely LEAs and the YPLA. It is critical for the vitality of the sector and to progressing to the light-touch mode that the Government claim they want to see characterising the new system for the funding and management of skills.
As the 157 Group commented:
You have to remember that the SFA does not actually deliver anything. The delivery has to be done through the provider network with employers and so on, which is where you want to put the most resources to ensure that you can do the maximum to help the nation.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 31, Q85.]
It argued for more power and action at local level with local authorities, providers and employers. That is central to the Bill and to our disagreement with the Government. A theme emerges from the analysis and recommendations of the Leitch report on how the system needs to changewith much of which we agreethe comments of witnesses in the evidence sessions of the Committee and other statements from experts in the field. There is a need to decentralise, to move to a lighter-touch regime, to be more responsive to demand and to involve employers at every stage of devising and delivering skills training. However, time and again, those who have commented on the Bill have concluded that the Government are at best paying lip service to that approach, while simultaneously establishing a byzantine bureaucracy that is frankly unlikely to deliver what they want or the nation needs. At the very least, the Government should accept the amendment to ensure that the SFA is consultative, if they must have an SFA in the proposed form at all.

Stephen Williams: I rise briefly to support the amendment. It is common sense that consultation should take place with the YPLA and local education authorities as they are co-funders under the new arrangements for the provision offered by colleges and other training providers. It is good practice to consult with other bodies that are already concerned with quality assurance in higher education, such as Ofsted and the QAA. The only point that I would add to the amendment is consultation with representatives who offer a learners perspective on how the quality of the provision offered by colleges and other providers should be assessed. The National Union of Students or some other mechanism could be used to ascertain the opinions of learners of the training courses that are delivered to them. I support the amendment, but I would add that point.

Siôn Simon: I do not know whether to deal first with the amendment or with the concerns of hon. Members, which do not seem to be exactly the same.
Amendment 136 would place a duty on the chief executive to consult specified organisations when adopting or developing schemes for the performance assessment of training or education providers that fall within his remit. It is similar to amendment 135 in respect of the YPLA, which we debated last Tuesday.
We share two of the concerns. First, we must ensure that the interests of certain bodies are considered when adopting or developing performance assessment schemes. That is essential in ensuring that learning providers are treated fairly and encouraged to take responsibility for self-assessment and improvement. Secondly, we must encourage the YPLA, the SFA and others to work together to develop a co-ordinated approach to performance assessment that keeps the burdens on colleges and other providers to a minimum. All of that is already happening, as is joint working.
In the Raising Expectations White Paper, we committed to a single tool for the assessment of all post-16 providers.

John Hayes: If it is already happening, why not accept the amendment?

Siôn Simon: We will not accept the amendment because it would stop it happening or prevent it from happening as well as it does. If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I will explain that.
The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Department for Children, Schools and Families are already leading discussions on the arrangements for performance assessment schemes in the FE sector after 2010, in consultation with key sector partners. The initial consultation involved stakeholders including Ofsted, the Association of Colleges, the Local Government Association and all the main representative organisations. All that is already going on without a statutory requirement, and it is neither right nor necessary to put that level of detail into the Bill. The need for consultation will inevitably vary. As was the case with the framework for excellence, we anticipate that the chief executive will need to consult more widely than just with the organisations listed. Colleges, other providers and learners are obvious omissions from the list, underlining why it is considerably more sensible to let the chief executive decide which bodies to consult, according to the circumstances.
Having dealt with the amendment, I will now respond to some of the more general points that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has made. He insists on describing the new structure as unaccountable, even though the chief executive will sit on the DIUS board, be responsible to the permanent secretary and through him to Ministers, and be a statutory accounting officer himself, with statutory responsibilities that are set out in the Bill. The chief executive of Skills Funding will be very accountable indeed. The hon. Gentleman tells us that the chief executive is unaccountable and at the same time that he is too close to Ministers and should be in a non-departmental public body. He cannot have it both ways. There are pros and cons at both ends of the argument, and we have found a good balance.
The hon. Gentleman also tells us that we need to decentralise, but a regional tier is fundamental to the new structure, and the ethos of the new organisation will involve routing funds and delivery down to local level as quickly and efficiently as possible. He tells us that we need to adopt a light touch, but that is exactly what we are trying to do, and he keeps telling us about the byzantine bureaucracy that we are creating. He does not give any details of that bureaucracy, because there are none. I have listed more than once the various ways in which, through a single account manager, single accreditation and single data collection, we are genuinely slimming down the system and making it less bureaucratic.
I will answer the similar point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, Westhe made it twice as I did not fully respond to it the first time. I do not want to make pronouncements now about future spending priority decisions, but if he is asking whether we anticipate that a key driver of the development of the National Apprenticeship Service will be to make apprenticeships less bureaucratic, easier to access, and easier for employers and learners, I can say that yes, that is very much part of what we are trying to do. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment and that we can move on.

John Hayes: An extraordinary picture is emerging. The Minister says that it is impossible to desire accountability and at the same time criticise the closeness of the body to Ministers, as if accountability to Ministers is the only kind that counts. The 157 Group talks about public accountabilitytransparency, in its terms. It is an extraordinary argument that one cannot say that the body is too centrally directed and at the same time say that it is unaccountable. We worry not whether the body is accountable to the Minister and his hon. Friends in the Ministry, but whether it is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions and the powers vested in it. We know what happened with the LSC and further education colleges. They are in crisis because Ministers and the people who run the LSC have made a complete mess of the capital funding system. So, it was not terribly reassuring when the Minister said that this body will be tightly controlled and answerable to Ministers.

Siôn Simon: On hon. Gentlemans second point, he cannot have it both ways. He says that the LSC made a complete mess and that it is all the fault of the Ministers, but the LSC is a non-departmental public body, which is considerably further removed. Just a minute ago, he was telling us that that was what we were doing wrong with the new structure.
On the matter of accountability, the hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me for having assumed that he might have some sense of democratic and parliamentary accountability and that he might put some value on those concepts. If not, I stand corrected.

John Hayes: I place tremendous value on democratic and parliamentary accountability, but we are not confident that this structure will deliver accountability of that kind. Using the FE funding crisis as a defence and a way of legitimising the Government position is, quite frankly, extremely dodgy, given the mess that the Government, the Ministers responsible, and the LSC are in at the moment.

Siôn Simon: I can only repeat that the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The record will show clearly that it is not me who has been trying to use the FE capital difficulties to make political points this morningI have simply been replying to those that he has been making.

John Hayes: I was not accusing the Minister of making political points about them; I was accusing him of using the relationship between Ministers and the LSC as a way of legitimising the argument that he made about the relationship between the SFA and Ministers.

Siôn Simon: To repeat, it was the hon. Gentleman who used the example of the current situation with the LSC to try to demonstrate that the situation, as we plan it, will not work. I simply responded by saying that he could not have it both ways. It was he who raised it, not me.

Joan Humble: Order. I must point out that we are moving away not only from the amendment, but from the clause that is before us. Can we perhaps return to both?

John Hayes: I do not want to cause the Minister any more unnecessary pain about a circumstance that he has described publicly, in the media, in pretty lurid terms, so I shall return to the amendment.
Given the tone and content of the hon. Gentlemans response, I think that we should press the amendment to a vote. That is not because it would, if passed, make the clause or the Bill ideal, but because it would to some degree mitigate the weaknesses inherent in the structure that the Government are proposing by obliging the kind of consultation that the Minister says is taking place anyway. The Minister repeatedly tells us that things do not need to be in the Bill because they are ipso facto and that things do not need to be in guidance because no sensible Government would not do them. However, we know that that is not the history of Governments, and of this Government in particular.

Stephen Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a specific example of that was the award of foundation degree-awarding powers to FE colleges? In the end, we were both supportive of that, but none the less had worries about the fact that the Government had not consulted higher education before making that fundamental transfer of power.

John Hayes: There have been countless examples, of which that is one, of the Government proceeding with significant changes without consulting either Parliament or the sector affected. Assurances about good will have to be supported by absolute guarantees that that good will will be reinforced, whoever the Minister happens to be and whoever is in Government. It might be hard for the Minister to come to terms with this, but at some stage, someone altogether less agreeable, less civilised and less generous than he, might occupy his office. On the other hand, it might be that someone of the opposite persuasion who is as generous, civilised, tolerant and open-minded, or more, occupies his officeas I hope to do. However, given that the first eventuality is at least a possibility, we must ensure that the Bill is as tightly worded as possible and for that reason, I intend to press the amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101

Assistance and support in relation to apprenticeship places

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: Very simply, the clause places a duty on the chief executive to provide services to assist people to find apprenticeships. I will make my questions brief and pointed. Will the vacancy matching service be categorised sectorally? How many employers do the Government envisage will sign up? With the current increase in broken apprenticeship agreements, will the vacancy matching service be capable of coping with an influx of apprentices who are part way through their course? What discussions have the Government had with sector skills councils on those three questions?

Siôn Simon: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have had discussions with sector skills councils. The vacancy matching service will be organised sectorally and it will cope with any large influx of people who have been made redundant. I do not have the exact details of the discussions with the sector skills councils in front of me, but I can try to look up the records. I am not sure whether I have answered all his questions or whether there was something else, but I am assuming from his motionlessness that I have done so, in my inadequate way.

Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 102 to 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106

Research, information and advice

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 106, page 63, line 11, at end add
(7) When establishing systems under subsection (5) the Chief Executive must consult the Young Peoples Learning Agency and local education authorities.
(8) When providing the Secretary of State with other information and advice he must do so after consultation with learners, further education colleges and employers..
The clause sets out the role of the chief executive in relation to research and the provision of information and advice, and the establishment of systems for collecting information. The chief executive has a duty to report to the Secretary of State on such matters as the Secretary of State may require. In practice, that is likely to include information about the progress of the Governments targets and priorities in connection with post-19 learning, a description of the chief executives learning and skills funding strategy and information on the application of funding. It will also include information about 16 to 18-year old apprentices.
Amendment 138 ensures that, when the chief executive sets up systems for collecting information, he consults the YPLA and the LEAs. When providing information, he should do so after consultation with learnersI hasten to add, given the intervention of the hon. Member for Bristol, West in relation to my earlier amendmentand with FE colleges and providers. The amendment is very much in the spirit of that proposed a few moments ago. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not think that such things should be in the Bill, and I appreciate that not everything can be, because of the need for flexibility, but some of these relationships are fundamental to the effective operation of the new regime, so in that spirit I have moved our amendment.

Siôn Simon: There is no lack of enthusiasm for consultation or even for setting things out in the Bill. As I have said repeatedly, we are doing that voluntarily, because it is important. What we do not want to do is place restrictions in the Bill that would become exactly such bureaucratic impediments as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is rightly keen to warn us against much of the time.
We agree that it is important for the chief executive to consult stakeholders. We agree that the stakeholders are likely to include the YPLA and local authorities. However, there will be other stakeholders too, whom we would not want to exclude inadvertently. Furthermore, it may not always be necessary to consult the YPLA and local authorities in all circumstances, and it would be an unnecessary and bureaucratic burden on them to do so.
The question of whom the chief executive consults depends on the nature of the system to be establishedwe must give the chief executive the flexibility to decide, in particular circumstances, who that should be. Formal consultation mechanisms are already being established. For example, we are putting in place robust governance arrangements for IT-enabled systems, involving the chief executive reporting to a joint DCSF-DIUS board comprising key stakeholder representatives, including the YPLA, local authority representatives and others.
At a customer level, we expect the chief executive to put in place and operate customer scrutiny groups for each of its key systems. The groups will include representatives of key stakeholders, customers and system users. The first of those groups is being established to ensure that the learner registration service is developed effectively. Although we think that consultation is best left to the discretion of the chief executive, if there is a problem there are already levers in the Bill to ensure that consultation takes place. Clause 114 requires the chief executive to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State, which may include guidance about consulting learners, employers and other bodies that the Secretary of State may specify in guidance. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: It would be self-indulgent of me to continue the debate unnecessarily or to press the amendment to a vote. My concerns about the measure are on record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 107 to 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110

Strategies: duty of Chief Executive

Amendment made: 292, in clause 110, page 65, line 12, leave out this or any other and insert any.(Mr. Simon.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 291.

Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111

Persons aged 19 or over with learning difficulties

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: We are racing through the Bill, contrary to the Ministers gloomy predictions at the beginning of our deliberations. However, I take the opportunity again to raise the matter drawn to the attention of the Committee by the further education college sector. I refer to the letter from the 157 Group, which it describes as supplementary evidence to the Committee. I shall quote from it without addition and unabridged:
We believe there is a potential unintentional gap within the proposed legislation in guaranteeing funding for adult learners with disabilities up to the age of 25 where the disability has not been diagnosed previously while in compulsory education. Further education colleges recruit a significant number of individuals who have re-entered education after a diagnosis has been made. We therefore urge you to revisit this section to ensure that funding and support is available for these individuals.
Will the Minister comment on that?

Siôn Simon: I did not make any gloomy predictions about the progress that we might make today, and I have every confidence in the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings sharing my desire to make steady, appropriate but smart progress. I simply noted that his optimistic summary of where we had reached to date was not one I could quite share, although it pained me to diverge from him.

John Hayes: I do not want to be unkind and I certainly do not want to delay the Committee. I think the hon. Gentleman is a decent chap who takes advice, so he should take heed of remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. When he does his next Billthis Bill is his first as Ministerit is important that he should not table quite so many Government amendments at such a late stage. I know that Government thinking moves on, but it is important that they get their act together before the Bill arrives in Committee. I say that generously.

Siôn Simon: I am glad of the opportunity once again to thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. It has moved me today as it has on other occasions and no doubt will do so in future. On this occasion, sadly, I have to remind him that of the 20 hours of debate hitherto, only 53 minutes have been spent on Government amendments. I do not propose to detain the Committee any longer on this question.
If I may go straight to the heart of the hon. Gentlemans question about adult learners up to the age of 25 whose learning needs have not been diagnosed, those are not matters that I should go into in detail here. Efforts to meet the needs of those groups are central to the aims of all the bodies involved from 16 to adulthood. We have talked at some length on previous occasions about the various duties in the Bill.

John Hayes: I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, particularly as he has described me as generous and sagacious, or whatever the phrase was. What is the 157 Group getting at? Does the Minister understand? If he does, what is his response?

Siôn Simon: The chief executive of Skills Funding and the Skills Funding Agency are best placed to meet the needs of those aged 19 and over with learning difficulties who are not subject to a learning difficulty assessment under sections 139A and 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Clause 111 states that the chief executive of Skills Funding must, in performing the functions of the office, have regard to the needs of persons aged 19 or over who have learning difficulties, as defined in subsection 3, with the exception of persons aged under 25 who are subject to learning difficulty assessment. It is significant that we have imposed a specific duty on the chief executive in relation to those aged 19 or over with learning difficulties. That continues our policy intent, as expressed in the annual Priorities for Success document from the Learning and Skills Council, which sets out our expectation that learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities are made a priority and that that should be reflected in the provision and support made available to them.
By imposing a specific duty on the chief executive, we have signalled our intention to ensure that the improvement in participation and progression of that group of learners will continue to be a priority. We have virtually doubled the number of learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in the FE system since 2001-02, and in the past two years, we have spent about £50 million improving local disability provision, which demonstrates that we are making learners with all forms of disabilities a priority in the FE system. I therefore suggest that the concerns of the 157 Group are unfounded.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 112 and 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114

Guidance
Amendment made: 293, in clause 114, page 66, line 21, leave out from time to time.(Mr. Simon.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.

Clause 114, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115

Directions: funding of qualifications

Question proposed,That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: I have a simple question for the Minister that I am sure he will be able to answer with his usual brevity. What kind of qualifications would the Secretary of State consider inappropriate for public funding and therefore exclude under this clause?

Siôn Simon: It is not envisaged that that power would need to be used very often, if at all, but if there was a proposal for a national vocational qualification in computer hacking, for example, or something equally inappropriate, that is the kind of thing we do not think the Government should fund.

John Hayes: For absolute clarity, is that a judgment based on those kind of ethical considerations, rather than a qualitative judgment on whether a qualification meets appropriate standards?

Siôn Simon: It is an exceptional power to be used in a case such as the one I have described, when the Secretary of State feels that the public interest is not being served. It could also conceivably relate to value for money, but I stress that it is an exceptional power for exceptional cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116

Directions: funding conditions requiring co-operation

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 364, in clause 116, page 67, line 21, after person, insert or body.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 365, in clause 116, page 67, line 32, at end add
(d) a provider network established to deliver education and skills to a geographical area or employment sector..

John Hayes: Now we turn to more meaty matters. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the chief executive to use funding conditions to require a training provider to co-operate with other training providers or specified bodies. The Secretary of State may require the chief executive to make it a condition of funding that the financial resources made available to a specified provider or providers of education or training must be dependent on requirements to co-operate with other specified providers or persons.
Amendment 364 deals with subsection (1)(a)(i) and (ii), which refer to providers co-operating with a
specified provider or providers, or...specified person,
but notably fail to mention the trade employer sector bodies, which is an important omission. The clause is a technical, but vital, element of the Bill. Therefore the amendment, although also technical, is significant. It places a requirement on the chief executive to ensure that providers work closely with trade employer sector bodies in the utilisation of funding.
Why is it significant? It has been argued time and time again that bodies such as sector skills councils are crucial in delivering training and also that employer representatives, such as the British Chambers of Commerce, CBI and Federation of Small Businesses, are critical to shaping the skills agenda. Yet we heard from employers in the witness sessions that they had doubts about whether significant regard had been given to their role, in the Bill, in doing so. Without a statutory duty to co-operate with those bodies, providers might miss out on the wealth of experience that those bodies can bring. In turn, the members of those bodies might miss out on their chance to be represented in devising and shaping the delivery of training. It is important, therefore, that we return to the issue of employer involvement.
Part of the problem with the current regime is that it is insensitive to employer demand; not entirely insensitive, but certainly too insensitive. For example, many employers report that they have to retrain people because the character of the training they have receivedperhaps in technical terms, for exampleis not in tune with the needs of dynamic industries. Advanced economies become increasingly dynamic and the skills sets required to drive the economy matches that change. It is critically important that the system is as responsive to employer needs as possible, so that what is taught and tested matches what is happening in the workplace.
Amendment 365 deals with subsection (3), which indicates that providers may work with the YPLA, LEA or specified bodies of the SFA. The amendment is designed to ensure that providers are encouraged to network together in order to deliver education skills to a particular geographical area or sector. Colleagues will recognise that subsection (3) indicates that providers can also potentially be asked to co-operate with the SFA, the YPLA and the LEAs in the delivery of training and education.
However, the clause is, again, an example of a missed opportunity. The Bill has been described as that by more than one commentator: one thinks of both the college sector and National Institute for Adult Continuing Education in that regard. This time the clause has missed the potential for providers to get together to deliver educational skills in a certain part of the country, or a certain market sector. Surely, a clause that emphasises co-operation should encourage providers to work in networks, in order to share expertise and experience, as well as providing education to large areas and large numbers of companies. I reflect, once again, on the comments made by the hon. Member for Bristol, Westand on my own remarksthat training associations are at the heart of that kind of co-operation. The Government have once againI hesitate to be too critical, but one must speak franklypaid lip service to Group Training Associations. I am not yet convinced that they see them as central to the business of enabling small employers, in particular, to make a step change in terms of the quality and quantity of training that they provide.
Amendment 365 makes a case for precisely that duty; the duty to share experience and work across a particular area or sector. Rather than leaving providers to work with LEAs, which have been criticised in Committee sittings as bureaucratic and unresponsive, and criticised in witness sessions for their poor track record of employer engagement, the amendment seeks to encourage providers to come together, to work together. It is one method of creating a truly responsive and flexible skills system and one that works as best it can for employers, learners and providers. I hope that in that spirit the hon. Gentleman will with generosity and alacrity accept the amendments.

Stephen Williams: In the interests of time, I will just say that I find the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings compelling and persuasive.

Siôn Simon: I do not want to couch my remarks, as the hon. Gentleman did, in terms that adversely criticise the current practitioners, many of whom are doing excellent things through tireless work. Clearly, we would not be embarking on the reforms if we did not believe that some things could be done better than they currently are. When he says that the system is currently insensitive to employers, I think that that is an adverse criticism, the harshness of which I cannot support.
Do we want to make the system more sensitive to employers? Is that a central theme of what we are doing? Certainly it is. We can all share in that aim.

John Hayes: For the record, my precise words were not entirely insensitive but certainly too insensitive.

Siôn Simon: In a sad lapse from his usual generous spirit, the hon. Gentleman accused me of paying lip service to GTAs. We are very keen on developing GTAs and supporting them. We have just announced £7 million for a new development scheme. They are at the heart of what the National Apprenticeship Service will be doing to respond to the downturn. I am glad that he and other Opposition Members share our commitment.
The Interpretation Act 1978 provides a list of words and expressions and sets out how they are to be interpreted in any Act, unless a contrary intention appears. The list includes the word person and provides that
person includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate.
Therefore the word person in the subsection will encompass a body already.
Amendment 365 proposes to add provider networks to the list of persons in subsection (3) with whom training providers may be required to co-operate, for example with regard to the planning and commissioning of education and training provision within an area.
The list at subsection (3) is not exhaustive and there may be a range of other persons or bodies with whom it would be appropriate for a provider to co-operate. We certainly support provider networks very strongly, and the clause is in part intended to give impetus precisely to such networks. A provider network will comprise a number of individual providers coming together to, for example, address the needs of learners, of employers or of a particular sector. The people and bodies who make up such networks will already fall within the provisions of subsection (1)(a)(i) or subsection (1)(a)(ii), and as such it is unnecessary to include a separate reference to them under subsection (3).
I hope that hon. Members can follow what I am saying. I understand the points that they are trying to make. I support the thrust of their arguments. The amendments are not necessary and I hope that they might be persuaded to withdraw them.

John Hayes: I do not want to labour my argument. The amendments are clear in intention. They reinforce the need for co-operation, just as our earlier amendments reinforced the need for consultation. It seems to me that both of those elements are essential if the purposes of this Bill are to be realised.
Without further ado, it is my intention to press the amendment to a vote, on the grounds that it is important that the Government understand our absolute determination that the Bill should be implemented in as consultative and collaborative a way as possible.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

Interpretation of Part

Amendments made: 278, in clause 118, page 68, leave out lines 15 to 17.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 279.
279, in clause 118, page 68, line 29, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment is consequent on amendment 282. The effect of clause 250(2) and (3) is that the definition in the new section 13(4) of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by amendment 282) will apply for the purposes of Part 4 of the Bill.
280, in clause 118, page 68, line 36, leave out from order to and in line 38.(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 271. The effect of clause 250(2) and (3) is that the definition in the new section 562(1A) of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by clause 48, as amended by amendment 271) will apply for the purposes of Part 4 of the Bill.

Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119

Sharing of information for education and training purposes

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 119, page 69, line 38, at end insert
(c) enables personal data to be shared between persons to whom this section applies without first gaining the consent of the individual to whom it belongs..
The clause is one of the many data-sharing provisions in this Bill and in other recently introduced legislation. It is ironic that the Government with the worst track record in safeguarding peoples personal data is the Government who have spawned more data-sharing legislation than any other. The clause allows the SFA, the Young Peoples Learning Agency and, as currently drafted, local education authorities to share information to help them to carry out their duties. The Government amendment in new clause 20 will remove LEAs from the list of bodies that can share information under the provision, and that concession is welcome. However, the new clause, which is in the next group of amendments, will still allow an LEA to supply information to the Skills Funding Agency and the YPLA, and vice versa. Therefore, I am not entirely clear how removing LEAs from the list in subsection (2) of the new clause really adds to the protection of data.
The amendment would prevent any of those bodies, including LEAs, from transferring information about an individual without that individuals consent. That is a pretty standard safeguard, and I cannot envisage that the Minister will have a problem with it. I look forward to his accepting the amendment.

Stephen Williams: I echo the hon. Gentlemans comments that this Government have a pretty awful record on safeguarding personal data. They also have a pretty awful record on seeking to ever increase their own powers on the acquisition of personal data for their own purposes, and we will return to that in the stand part debate.
The amendment is specifically concerned with the consent of an individual to have some control over data that is personal to them. It seems that it is a fundamental principle that individuals, first of all, consent to the sharing of that data with a body other than the one that initially holds it, but they should be clear as to what data may be shared with another body and for what purposes. I look forward to hearing the Ministers justification as to why the data may need to be shared, and what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that each individuals privacy is respected.

Jim Knight: This is my first contribution today, and it is a pleasure that you, Mrs. Humble, are back, looking after us in the wonderful way that you do.
The clause will give the chief executive of Skills Funding, the YPLA, LEAs and people providing services to any of those organisations the power to share necessary information to fulfil their functions effectively. That will ensure that as those organisations take over the functions of the LSC, they will each have access to relevant data to carry out their functions. The data is currently collected, analysed and used by the LSC to inform policy and funding decisions and to commission provisionsin essence, it is the transfer of those powers from the LSC to its successor bodies.
Naturally, I understand concerns about handling personal informationI recall with affection the debates that we have had on that particular issue. All the normal safeguards that one would expect will apply to the retention and sharing of data under the clausein particular, to answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, West, the Data Protection Act 1998 will apply. When the information is first collected from individuals, there will be a fair processing notice, which will make it clear for what purpose their personal data will be used and with whom they will be shared.
In addition, the same robust security systems that operate now will continue to operate in the future. Those systems will meet, as a minimum, existing Cabinet Office requirements. It is significant that the main data services function will be carried out by the SFA, which will become part of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. As something that is part of a Department, it will be very much required to fulfil those Cabinet Office requirements. Personal learner data held securely in databases will, as now, be password protected. Only individuals who have a justifiable and business reason to access that data will be able to do so.
The amendment would have the effect that the bodies will not be able to share personal information without the consent of the individual. If we accepted the amendmentI understand that it is well intentioned, to secure individual rights and protectionsand individuals were not to give their consent, it would render the aggregated data on the reports, which the YPLA, the chief executive of Skills Funding and LEAs must have to perform their functions, next to useless because they would be unreliable.
In order for the chief executive of Skills Funding or the YPLA to be able to analyse the impact of their policies on learners, they will need to build up composite models from individuals data, and, to do that, they will need to be able to match individual data as it moves through the system. Matching is only possible if information that could identify an individual is shared; such data is therefore personal. I reiterate that, while it is possible to anonymise some of the data to a certain extentby removing names, for exampleother aspects of the data are necessary in order to analyse them and answer the parliamentary questions that hon. Members love quite rightly to ask as part of their scrutiny of the function of government. Those elements of personal data would allow an individual to be identified, and it is important that people understand that, although some aspects of the data could be removed to make them look anonymous, the data would still be regarded as personal in technical terms. That is why I resist the amendment.

Nick Gibb: The right hon. Gentleman implies that data sharing is necessary for research and to analyse the effectiveness of policy. The clause heading, however, reads, Sharing of information for education and training purposes, which implies that it is meant to help individuals who are concerned about their own training and education, and that it is not about Government research.

Jim Knight: Let me give the hon. Gentleman some other examples, apart from research, of why data sharing is necessary. On data flows from the YPLA to the SFA, the information and business service unit will be located at the SFA, which is where data, in the broad terms outlined by the clause, need to go to and from. The YPLA will process the education maintenance allowance grant system, and, in order to assess how well the EMA works in encouraging individuals to progress to level 3 in further education colleges, we need to match recipients of the EMA to those doing level 3 in such colleges. The SFA therefore needs information, such as a postcode or unique learner number, which identifies EMA recipients. If the flow of data was not allowed, or if individuals refused permission for their personal data to be shared, there is a risk that EMA policy would be based on very poor data. That is an example of the need for analysis.
On data flows from the SFA to the YPLA in relation to an individual, the individual learner record and the school census data will be held by the SFAs data service. The YPLA will secure and monitor provision for learners with learning difficulties or a disability. That will be done on an individual learner basis, because it relates to each learners statement of special educational needs, so the YPLA must have access to personal data as recorded on that statement in order to provide appropriate provision and support for individuals. That data will be held by the SFA, and, if the data flow is not allowed, some people with special needs would not receive appropriate provision and support to engage in learning.

Nick Gibb: But in those circumstances, why would an individual refuse permission for his or her personal data to be supplied?

Jim Knight: I understand the hon. Gentlemans point that that might be of advantage to an individual, but the powers are necessary to help individuals and to inform analysis. I have a series of examples of such matters. When problems with a local authority commission cannot be resolved through guidance and support, the YPLA will be able to consider invoking the powers that we discussed previously to commission provision and take it away from local authorities.
In such a scenario, the YPLA would need access to the analysis of local information and trendswhere groups of learners may be dropping out, for examplethat informed the local authority commissioning plans. While the YPLA would have access to learner data from the SFA, it would also be important for it to have access to the local authority data to ensure that the YPLA could commission appropriate provision on the authoritys behalf. If the flow was not allowed or was not reliable, the YPLA would not be able to assess and resolve local difficulties for learners as we want it to so that the intervention works.

Nick Gibb: Numbers on the rolls of colleges and schools are not personal data, but belong to the college or school. Again, there is no requirement in such circumstances for the information to be supplied. The Ministers other examples involve either personal issues, in which case it benefits the person to supply the information, or research, which can be based on sampling and market research. All private sector companies resort to that in carrying out their market research and research generally.

Jim Knight: I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman that sampling is sufficient for these purposes. It is hugely important that information is accurate and based on reality when commissioning the provision to meet individual learner needs. The situation already exists; we are not talking about imposing swathes of new powers. We are talking about replicating what currently exists for the Learning and Skills Council to ensure that commissioning is accurate and appropriate.
The amendment would risk the funding and commissioning decisions of all three organisations being flawed because they might be based on incomplete or misleading data. Ultimately, the operation of the whole system would be adversely affected and we would not be able to ensure that learners get the best possible provision. We cannot accept the system being impaired so that learners lose out. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, although I am not optimistic.

Nick Gibb: I was very disappointed in that response. I intended the amendment to be probing, but the more answers the Minister gives, the more concerned I am. It is clear that if information is needed for an individuals education, there is no reason why they would not give permission for the data to be supplied. The Minister gave the example of a young person with a statement of educational needs.
All the Ministers other examples related to high-level aggregated research to assess the effectiveness of Government policies. I do not accept the view that personal data must be supplied in those circumstances. It is precious information about an individuals academic record or other matters. It has been given for different purposes and in some circumstances in confidence. When a tutor or an institution asks for such information, it is not on the basis that it will be used for research. The individual is asked for it and wishes to give it because it is necessary for their interaction with the agency.

Jim Knight: I will have just one last go by giving another example. It relates to a data flow from a local authority to skills funding, in respect of the National Apprenticeship Service. Local authorities will need data to identify learners who drop out of apprenticeships in order to support and re-engage them as appropriate. If an individual has dropped out, it is not practical to say to them, Can we share your data because it is in your best interests for us to re-engage you? If we have that information from the outset, it will enable the individual to be properly supported.

Nick Gibb: That all goes back to the debate about data sharing, which the Minister referred to with affection. It is wrong for information given for one purpose to be used to enforce a Government policy, such as participation to the age of 18. I do not believe that personal information should be used to enforce Government policy in the way that he has suggested. If an individual does not wish to participate in or engage with an apprenticeship, with higher learning or with further education, it is a matter for that individual. It is up to the state to provide high-quality provision, services and access to education and training, but if individuals do not wish to access it, it is not the role of the state to bully and badger them into taking part.

Jim Knight: I am not talking about bullying and badgering, but about providing support. If someone has dropped out and become disengaged, we must be able to support them. We need to know about them to be able to offer that support. We do not want to bully and badger them, but to help them to get on.

Nick Gibb: I agree: the state should provide support, but whether an individual decides to access that support is, at the end of the day, up to him or her. The only reason that the Minister wants that information flow from a local authority to the Skills Funding Agency is to enable badgering to take place.
The Minister has not convinced me. I do not believe that the flow of information is necessary in any of the examples that he has given. Where it is necessary, it is clear that the individual concerned would want to give consent because without it he or she would not get the particular type of education that the statement of educational needs enabled them to access. The other examples are about either pursuing Government policy or high-level aggregated research, which can be conducted in different ways without jeopardising personal information that is garnered for one particular purpose and should not be used for another purpose. The state needs to adhere to that important principle at all times. In the light of the unconvincing response to amendment 30, I intend to test the opinion of the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 422
New clause 20Sharing of information for education and training purposes.

Jim Knight: In speaking to amendment 30, I have already set out the importance of the information sharing powers in clause 119. As it stands, the clause extends local education authorities existing statutory powers to share information with each other. On reflection it is thought that the existing information-sharing powers are sufficient for local education authorities new responsibilities under the Bill. We do not wish to extend information sharing gateways where they are not necessary. Hence, new clause 20, which we propose as a replacement to clause 119 in its entirety, differs in only two respects. First, local education authorities existing statutory powers to share information will not be widened and, secondly, the new clause clarifies that a
a member of the Chief Executives staff
includes those appointed by him as well as those provided to him by the Secretary of State. That clarity is necessary to provide consistency with earlier revisions made to schedule 4, which make it clear that the functions of the chief executive may be delegated to staff in either category.
We propose replacing the clause in its entirety to aid Members in their consideration of the clause. Therefore, I propose that new clause 20 replaces clause 119 and I oppose clause 119 standing part of the Bill.
Mr. Gibbrose

Jim Knight: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton before speaking to amendment 422.

Nick Gibb: I am still not clear why the new clause takes local education authorities out of the list of persons to which subsection (2) of clause 119 applies and replaces it with a smaller list that omits local education authorities. The two subsequent subsections in new clause 20 put back the power for LEAs to supply information to the various bodies. Can the Minister explain the difference between the provisions of new clause 20 and old clause 119?

Jim Knight: The difference is as I set out. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to subsection (3), where local authorities have been taken out of the list. In subsections (4) and (5), person includes local authorities. My understanding is that allowing local authorities to share information with Skills Funding and the YPLA is necessary for the information sharing to work. By removing those organisations from the earlier list, we are excluding their ability to share information with each other. In essence, we would regard that as unnecessary. If the situation is different I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but that is my understanding.

John Hayes: Will the Minister deal with the issue of what is necessary and what is allowable? He said that the measure is about excluding things that are unnecessary, but both the original clause and the new clause bar only information that is not allowable in law. That is not about necessity, but whether something is allowable. For example, the original clause mentioned information that it would be an offence to share or when other restrictions would prohibit disclosure.

Jim Knight: When I talk about what is necessary, I mean what is necessary in order for the various LSC successor bodies to be able to carry out their functions. Such data sharing is necessary for the LSC, and we are simply transferring that ability to the successor bodies in response to debate on an earlier amendment.
On Government amendment 422, in order to administer the education maintenance allowance, the LSC requires information held for tax and tax credit purposes by Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, and information held for social security purposes by the Department for Work and Pensions, so that it can check the validity of applications for the allowance. The amendment will enable such information to be passed to the LSC successor bodies so that the existing arrangements can continue. I hope that the amendment is agreed to in due course.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

dissolution of the Learning and Skills Council for England: Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment made: 422, in schedule 6, page 171, line 5, at end insert

Education Act 2005 (c. 18)
In section 108 of the Education Act 2005 (supply of information: education maintenance allowances), in subsection (3)
(a) in paragraph (b) for Learning and Skills Council for England substitute Chief Executive of Skills Funding;
(b) after paragraph (b) insert
(ba) the Young Peoples Learning Agency for England;;
(c) in paragraph (f) for the words from the Secretary of State to the end substitute a person within paragraphs (a) to (e)..(Jim Knight.)

This amendment will allow information held for tax and tax credit purposes or social security purposes to be supplied to the Chief Executive of Skills Funding and the Young Peoples Learning Agency (in place of the Learning and Skills Council) for purposes relating to eligibility for education maintenance allowance.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7

learning and Skills Council for England: transfer schemes

Jeff Ennis: I beg to move amendment 423, in schedule 7, page 172, line 15, at end insert
( ) Where the transfer results in a substantial change of terms and conditions, by the new employer or the previous employer pre-transfer, that are to the material detriment of the transferee, this will be seen as a breach of contract by the employer..
It is always a delight to see you in the Chair, Mrs. Humble. The schedule deals with staff transfer schemes about which LSC staff are concerned. I am sure that other hon. Members have received e-mails from LSC staff, who are probably also members of the in-house trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union. Their main concern is compliance of the staff transfer scheme with the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers. In effect, we are talking about the transfer of public employees.
One e-mail that I received from a member of staff who lives in Mexborough in my constituency sums up the concerns in a nutshell.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four oclock.